Staff Reporter
CHINESE-OWNED mining company, Xinfeng Investments, has brought an urgent application to the High Court to restrain the Minister of Mines and Energy, Tom Alweendo’s decision to revoke their Lithium mining license issued in September 2022.
Alweendo’s decision to cancel the mining license came after a demonstration by the Daures community, farmers, and miners who claimed that Xinfeng carried out illegal mining activities. In addition to this, the minister noted that Xinfeng provided misleading and incorrect information to be granted their mining license ML 243.
In an urgent court application, Xinfeng Investments, represented by Nambili Mhata Legal Practitioners in their notice of motion, said that pending the determination of part B of their application, the respondents, which include: The Minister of Mines and Energy, the Mining Commissioner, and the Environmental Commissioner, are interdicted and restrained from implementing in any manner the first respondent’s decision taken on or about 28 April 2023 to revoke his decision to grant the applicant mining license ML 243.
Nambili Mhata Legal Practitioners further wrote that alternatively, the first respondent’s decision to revoke the applicant’s mining license ML 243 is suspended with immediate effect and shall have no force and effect until the final determination of Part B proceedings, and the relief sought therein.
In part B of their notice of motion, Nambili Mhata noted that the applicant intends to make an application to the High Court on a date to be arranged with the Registrar for an order in the following terms: the first respondent’s decision taken on or about 28 April 2023 to revoke his decision to grant the applicant mining license ML 243 is declared unlawful and invalid and is reviewed, corrected, and set aside.
In addition to this, Nambili Mhata said that an application will also seek to find that the conduct of the first respondent (Alweendo) and his decision to revoke the applicant’s mining license are declared ultra vires and contrary to the terms and provisions of the Minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act, 33 of 1992, and are, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid.
“The first respondent and any other litigant opposing the matter is directed to pay the costs of suit, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, including the costs of one instructing and two instructed legal practitioners. The first respondent is called upon, in terms of Rule 76(2)(b) to dispatch, within 15 days after receipt of this application, to serve on the applicant a copy of the complete record and file with the registrar the original record of the aforesaid decision together with reasons for the decision and to notify the applicant that he or she has done so,” Nambili Mhata Legal Practitioners wrote.
